Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: DevilsPGD on 5 Jul 2010 19:33 In message <050720101522180143%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote: >the fact that many users say that it works *better* puts a rather big >dent in the claim that it's defective. A product can be both better in one way *and* defective in another way at the same time.
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 19:47 In article <0sq4365fp0i4dbvqde0pqrqq74mk7n9egr(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > >the fact that many users say that it works *better* puts a rather big > >dent in the claim that it's defective. > > A product can be both better in one way *and* defective in another way > at the same time. yes it can but the lawsuits simply say it's defective and unfit to be sold. that's demonstrably false when some people say it's better than what they used to use. why some people have problems and others don't is still not clear. some people *can't* make the bars change or drop calls no matter how they hold it.
From: Justin on 5 Jul 2010 19:51 DevilsPGD wrote on [Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:33:00 -0700]: > In message <050720101522180143%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote: > >>the fact that many users say that it works *better* puts a rather big >>dent in the claim that it's defective. > > A product can be both better in one way *and* defective in another way > at the same time. But it can't be new & improved. Choose one.
From: tlvp on 5 Jul 2010 20:07 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:04:14 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)anoospaml.com> wrote: > At 03 Jul 2010 23:25:55 -0400 tlvp wrote: >> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:40:59 -0400, Richard B. Gilbert > <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > Justin wrote: >> >> Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]: >> >>> Justin <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote in news:i0nbhl$pcn > $1(a)news.eternal- >> >>> september.org: >> >>> >> >>>> data mining. >> >>> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing..... >> >> >> >> yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud >> > >> > Who is responsible for the integrity and security of data stored "in > the >> > cloud"? Why should I, or anyone, be willing to entrust his data to > it? >> >> Case in point: the T-Mobile/Microsoft/Danger/Sidekick data-loss fiasco >> not that long ago. Has all that lost data been reconstructed yet? >> > > > Yes, about a week after the server crash. > > Of course that didn't make as many headlines as the loss did! ;) > > <http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-takes-credit-for-resolving- > Sidekick-data-loss-but-not-for-causing-it/1255618540> Thanks, Todd. I was following this at the time, and it seems to me that I recall, even several weeks after the loss, that only *some* of the data had been fully recovered -- *all* of it for many customers, *most* of it for some others, and little to none for the remainder. T-Mo Forums were rife with angry complaints from all but the first group of customers. But you're right, of course, none of the recovery successes made much news. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 5 Jul 2010 20:34
tlvp wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:04:14 -0400, Todd Allcock > <elecconnec(a)anoospaml.com> wrote: > >> At 03 Jul 2010 23:25:55 -0400 tlvp wrote: >>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:40:59 -0400, Richard B. Gilbert >> <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> > Justin wrote: >>> >> Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]: >>> >>> Justin <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote in news:i0nbhl$pcn >> $1(a)news.eternal- >>> >>> september.org: >>> >>> >>> >>>> data mining. >>> >>> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing..... >>> >> >>> >> yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud >>> > >>> > Who is responsible for the integrity and security of data stored "in >> the >>> > cloud"? Why should I, or anyone, be willing to entrust his data to >> it? >>> >>> Case in point: the T-Mobile/Microsoft/Danger/Sidekick data-loss fiasco >>> not that long ago. Has all that lost data been reconstructed yet? >>> >> >> >> Yes, about a week after the server crash. >> >> Of course that didn't make as many headlines as the loss did! ;) >> >> <http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-takes-credit-for-resolving- >> Sidekick-data-loss-but-not-for-causing-it/1255618540> > > Thanks, Todd. I was following this at the time, and it seems to me that > I recall, even several weeks after the loss, that only *some* of the data > had been fully recovered -- *all* of it for many customers, *most* of it > for some others, and little to none for the remainder. > > T-Mo Forums were rife with angry complaints from all but the first > group of customers. > > But you're right, of course, none of the recovery successes made much news. > > Cheers, -- tlvp You don't get a medal for anything less than full recovery! Even a 98% recovery can leave you with a lot of customers who lost data. Those who did lose data will not be pleased with your performance! If you have 3,000,000 customers and two percent lose data that you can't recover, you have 180,000 former customers telling everyone what a P.O.S. you are. You had better believe that the word will get around. OTOH, the customer should ALSO be making backups to his desktop or laptop or, if he has nothing better, pen and ink. Nobody cares more about your data than you do! |